Defining what is "rich" is all semantics. Economists put $150-$300k household incomes into the upper middle class. This class has a very different life experience from people in the middle class, but an even drastically different experience from those who are wealthy.
Call it what you will, but $150K puts you firmly into the top 10%, and most of that $150K-$300K range will put you well into the top 5% of income earners. Most would consider the top 5-10% as "rich"...
$150K puts you well into the top 10%, and most of that $150K-$300K is well in the top 5%. Yes, it's rich. Is it enough for your situation? That's not the question - you are in the top 10% (or higher) for all income earners, meaning you ARE rich in income.
No, my point - and one that you CONTINUE to ignore because you have a crusade to push - is that other sources of crude are cheaper to extract for the US. So we do those instead of the shale oil. Once again:
THE TAR SANDS ARE IN CANADA AND ARE NOT IN THE US!
They are the CHEAPEST source of oil inside Canada, and thus the reason Canada started refining them when oil was well over $43 a barrel. That was also the time the Canadian dollar reached parity with the US dollar. Now that oil has plummeted, the tar sands production is slowing down, and the Canadian dollar has also tumbled. If oil prices go back up, Canada will start heavy refining again.
HOWEVER, the US still has LOTS of other resources of oil well below $30 per barrel, and will continue to pump that until it exceeds that price. Then we could switch over to the Green River formation and pump that.
Bottom line: we have well over 2 centuries of proven oil reserves within the US, and most of that can be extracted at around $30 or less per barrel. You want to argue that? Go ahead - bring a fact or two, because I've proven my case repeatedly with nicely linked facts, and your position is completely irrelevant because it stands on a FOREIGN COUNTRY with DIFFERENT RESOURCES behaving in a different manner.
You don't even need to go to the Rothchilds. The Walton family is worth somewhere around $150 billion, minimum... But imagine if Bezos' and Gates' families merged...
Concentrated wealth is a threat to the republic and social stability.
IF that wealth is taken from others by force, I would agree. In the case of Bezos and Gates, they actually BUILT that wealth, creating new companies where people voluntarily put their money (via purchasing products and buying shares). I don't think that threatens a republic at all, rather it is the result of a well functioning republic - success based more upon merit than heritage or political position (isn't it curious how our elected politicians enter office worth $1 million, and all retire worth tens or hundreds of millions?)
Tar sands are about $43 per barrel to break-even, and they are in Canada which means they are not part of the Green River shale formation in the USA. A lot of the reason we are not producing out of the Green River formation is because of what was mentioned above (cheaper for us to produce in other US regions), and political roadblocks to actually developing that resource.
It's higher than 1% (fail), and it is not uniform (the State Supreme Court has consistently ruled over the last 100 years that uniform means NO deductions, no minimum thresholds, must be applied to the entire value of what is being taxed, not a portion thereof). It's a fail through and through.
Yes, ONE guy questions it about the technology. But the companies that would it claim it can be done for $30/barrel. Apparently the technology exists, it's been trial run, and it can be profitable if oil sells for more than $30 a barrel - which is lower than the current price of oil per barrel.
Perhaps you are not aware that many - dare I say most, or even all? - petrol powered cars have tanks larger than 1 gallon? I know, insanity! But it is true! Why, even my petrol powered motorcycle has a tank that can hold 3.2 gallons...
The Green River Formation has 200+ years of oil reserves at the current US rate of ~20 million barrels consumption a day. And that is just one oil reserve within the US. We could be 100% self-sufficient, free of any foreign oil dependence, for literally centuries.
Seattle THINKS it has an income tax. WA Constitution Article 7, sections 1 and 2 state that any tax on income must be uniform (meaning - no minimum income level, no progressive levels, it's on every penny from the first to billionth and beyond), and it cannot be more than 1%. Seattle's "law" fails on both counts - and it will be struck down by the State Supreme Court as has happened consistently in Washington over the last 80 years. Yes, I lived there, and that was one of the things I loved about WA (but the B&O tax, on the other hand, sucked for small businesses).
But WA State has no income tax, lower property taxes, about equal sales tax, and a lot less debt-per-capita as compared to CA. CA has much better weather, though - I was born and raised in Seattle, but now reside in SoCal where we complain about our 30 days a year of rain...
Huh? I was trying to support your position. I don't think many people consider Argentina and Indonesia "hotbeds of innovative startups"... We're way overtaxed compared to most of the developed world... Oh, and average means the ACTUAL tax rate paid. Marginal rates puts us at the top, but most companies do get at least a few deductions (and I know about small businesses - I've started and sold 4 so far, and have two more going, one a fairly large VC play in SF) which helps get us to "only the 3rd most taxed companies in the world" rather than number one!
Norwegians pay high levels of income tax -- an average of 40.2 percent
Sure, they pay a lot - but nearly HALF of that goes back to the Government in income tax alone. Yes, you earn more - and you get to give that right back.
Just like if you're an engineer in San Francisco, you tend to earn more than if you're an engineer in Detroit. Companies HAVE to pay you more because the cost of living is so much higher. They couldn't hire ANYONE if they paid Detroit-level salaries for San Francisco living.
You are 100% correct. The USA has the highest marginal corporate tax rate, and the 3rd highest effective corporate tax rate. Why should they pay more than they would pay in any EU country? Lower the marginal corporate tax rate to the OECD average around 20%, ensure the effective corporate tax rate is down near the OECD of 15%, and I bet a ton of that cash would flow back...
In fact, if it were my choice, I'd set the corporate tax rate to 0%. And I would state that US corporations must be headquartered in the US, and at least 60% of all VP level and higher positions within the corporation or its parent corporation must reside at least 181 days within the US (making personal income taxable). My guess is a ton of companies would relocate to the US because of the tax savings, and quite a few wealthy folks would relocate as well (because of the 60% management rule) such that service and goods industries would also pick up from the increase of spending by the additional top 10% income earners...
Slashdot Mirror
Defining what is "rich" is all semantics. Economists put $150-$300k household incomes into the upper middle class. This class has a very different life experience from people in the middle class, but an even drastically different experience from those who are wealthy.
Call it what you will, but $150K puts you firmly into the top 10%, and most of that $150K-$300K range will put you well into the top 5% of income earners. Most would consider the top 5-10% as "rich"...
$150K puts you well into the top 10%, and most of that $150K-$300K is well in the top 5%. Yes, it's rich. Is it enough for your situation? That's not the question - you are in the top 10% (or higher) for all income earners, meaning you ARE rich in income.
Spending now, that can make a rich man poor...
No, my point - and one that you CONTINUE to ignore because you have a crusade to push - is that other sources of crude are cheaper to extract for the US. So we do those instead of the shale oil. Once again:
THE TAR SANDS ARE IN CANADA AND ARE NOT IN THE US!
They are the CHEAPEST source of oil inside Canada, and thus the reason Canada started refining them when oil was well over $43 a barrel. That was also the time the Canadian dollar reached parity with the US dollar. Now that oil has plummeted, the tar sands production is slowing down, and the Canadian dollar has also tumbled. If oil prices go back up, Canada will start heavy refining again.
HOWEVER, the US still has LOTS of other resources of oil well below $30 per barrel, and will continue to pump that until it exceeds that price. Then we could switch over to the Green River formation and pump that.
Bottom line: we have well over 2 centuries of proven oil reserves within the US, and most of that can be extracted at around $30 or less per barrel. You want to argue that? Go ahead - bring a fact or two, because I've proven my case repeatedly with nicely linked facts, and your position is completely irrelevant because it stands on a FOREIGN COUNTRY with DIFFERENT RESOURCES behaving in a different manner.
You don't even need to go to the Rothchilds. The Walton family is worth somewhere around $150 billion, minimum... But imagine if Bezos' and Gates' families merged...
Concentrated wealth is a threat to the republic and social stability.
IF that wealth is taken from others by force, I would agree. In the case of Bezos and Gates, they actually BUILT that wealth, creating new companies where people voluntarily put their money (via purchasing products and buying shares). I don't think that threatens a republic at all, rather it is the result of a well functioning republic - success based more upon merit than heritage or political position (isn't it curious how our elected politicians enter office worth $1 million, and all retire worth tens or hundreds of millions?)
Tar sands are about $43 per barrel to break-even, and they are in Canada which means they are not part of the Green River shale formation in the USA. A lot of the reason we are not producing out of the Green River formation is because of what was mentioned above (cheaper for us to produce in other US regions), and political roadblocks to actually developing that resource.
Depends upon if it is carried by a European or African swallow...
It's higher than 1% (fail), and it is not uniform (the State Supreme Court has consistently ruled over the last 100 years that uniform means NO deductions, no minimum thresholds, must be applied to the entire value of what is being taxed, not a portion thereof). It's a fail through and through.
Yes, ONE guy questions it about the technology. But the companies that would it claim it can be done for $30/barrel. Apparently the technology exists, it's been trial run, and it can be profitable if oil sells for more than $30 a barrel - which is lower than the current price of oil per barrel.
Perhaps you are not aware that many - dare I say most, or even all? - petrol powered cars have tanks larger than 1 gallon? I know, insanity! But it is true! Why, even my petrol powered motorcycle has a tank that can hold 3.2 gallons...
The Green River Formation has 200+ years of oil reserves at the current US rate of ~20 million barrels consumption a day. And that is just one oil reserve within the US. We could be 100% self-sufficient, free of any foreign oil dependence, for literally centuries.
Seattle THINKS it has an income tax. WA Constitution Article 7, sections 1 and 2 state that any tax on income must be uniform (meaning - no minimum income level, no progressive levels, it's on every penny from the first to billionth and beyond), and it cannot be more than 1%. Seattle's "law" fails on both counts - and it will be struck down by the State Supreme Court as has happened consistently in Washington over the last 80 years. Yes, I lived there, and that was one of the things I loved about WA (but the B&O tax, on the other hand, sucked for small businesses).
SV has the best weather? You can keep it... I prefer Ventura, much more moderate temps year round, more sun - and water you can actually surf!
Your Bible-Fu is weak...
But WA State has no income tax, lower property taxes, about equal sales tax, and a lot less debt-per-capita as compared to CA. CA has much better weather, though - I was born and raised in Seattle, but now reside in SoCal where we complain about our 30 days a year of rain...
Huh? I was trying to support your position. I don't think many people consider Argentina and Indonesia "hotbeds of innovative startups"... We're way overtaxed compared to most of the developed world... Oh, and average means the ACTUAL tax rate paid. Marginal rates puts us at the top, but most companies do get at least a few deductions (and I know about small businesses - I've started and sold 4 so far, and have two more going, one a fairly large VC play in SF) which helps get us to "only the 3rd most taxed companies in the world" rather than number one!
He's pointing out that a small business is a very efficient vehicle for co-mingling business and personal expenses.
Which is also a great way to have Mr. IRS Agent come, audit, and slap you for improper deductions, back taxes, and tons of penalties!
Yeah, we're not the highest, for the G20 we're 3rd place behind Argentina and Indonesia when it comes to average effective corporate tax rate.
RTFS:
Norwegians pay high levels of income tax -- an average of 40.2 percent
Sure, they pay a lot - but nearly HALF of that goes back to the Government in income tax alone. Yes, you earn more - and you get to give that right back.
Plus you have the third most expensive beer in Europe, trailing two Swiss cities. In general, Norway is incredibly expensive to live in, nearly 50% more expensive than the EC/EU28 average. You have to earn more, because you pay more across the board - taxes, food, and all other expenses.
Just like if you're an engineer in San Francisco, you tend to earn more than if you're an engineer in Detroit. Companies HAVE to pay you more because the cost of living is so much higher. They couldn't hire ANYONE if they paid Detroit-level salaries for San Francisco living.
Not if it's full of concrete. Faster that way, you don't have to wait for their cement shoes to harden...
Ah, got it. So if the WinXP fixes each had 20 bug fixes, it would be on par with Debian. And that is terrible, just terrible!
Wow! A whole 2,403 bugs! If only they were as rock solid as Debian, with it's 80,000+ bugs.... Oh wait...
You are 100% correct. The USA has the highest marginal corporate tax rate, and the 3rd highest effective corporate tax rate. Why should they pay more than they would pay in any EU country? Lower the marginal corporate tax rate to the OECD average around 20%, ensure the effective corporate tax rate is down near the OECD of 15%, and I bet a ton of that cash would flow back...
In fact, if it were my choice, I'd set the corporate tax rate to 0%. And I would state that US corporations must be headquartered in the US, and at least 60% of all VP level and higher positions within the corporation or its parent corporation must reside at least 181 days within the US (making personal income taxable). My guess is a ton of companies would relocate to the US because of the tax savings, and quite a few wealthy folks would relocate as well (because of the 60% management rule) such that service and goods industries would also pick up from the increase of spending by the additional top 10% income earners...
We are also the only developed country that does that, too...
Time to upgrade from the TI 99/A, eh?